Burned Alive During 18th Birthday

[PissOffRoth]

If he set another guy on fire adn got 3,5 years and the minimum for manslaughter is five years...what?

I really can't tell if 3.5 years is long enough, since I've never been to a prison in my whole life, or even met a criminal (or atleast, someone who said they were a criminal).

Prison is about rehabilitation, and if he can rehabilitate in 3.5 years, then it's long enough.

Prison is not about rehabilitation. Prison is about punishment and removing a dangerous person from society.

In any case, I can't imagine he'll have a great time in prison. 20 years old, and he's in for lighting an autistic kid on fire? Yeah, good luck in there.

 

[Jamash]

As far as tha law goes, thatz fine.

If it was me dat da perved-out muthafucka set on fire, I'd make it mah goal up in thuglife ta make shizzle da thug was charged wit attempted murder. Shiiit, dis aint no joke. It only takes one mistake n' his ass could have took a dirt nap or been seriously damaged fo' life.

...alright, some I'm reading through this thread. You know, you got your typical "that is some fucked up shit", "he should be tortured for torturing someone", and the few people trying to play devil's advocate and act "rational." (I use that word very loosely.)

And then there's you.

Seriously, da fuq is this?

It's just a joke account of someone using Gizoogle [http://www.gizoogle.net/] to translate their posts into a parody of how Black people talk (or more accurately, how certain members of that community supposedly speak).

 

[MarsProbe]

Well The Sun is a tabloid, falling somewhere between FOX News & The Onion, & has admitted to making shit up, so before I say anything, I need proof it happened at all.

If it's The Sun reporting on it, then it's probably not something you need to care about. They'd likely just as soon set somebody on fire themselves if they could get a "story" out of it. Plus, perhaps he wouldn't have burned so easily if he wasn't wearing tanning oil.

Also, one other thing - the guy has 60% burns on his body, and the thing the paramedic notices is the lipstick on the guys face? Yeh, right.

 

[Timmey]

As someone else mentioned he pleaded guilty, so i imagine that had a part to play in his sentencing. As for the assertion the courts were more lenient because the guy who he set on fire was gay and autistic, that is ludicrous, and not the way the British justice system works. And worse than that those who say he should face the same punishment he put the victim through, that is even worse, two wrongs don't make a right, and capital punishment has rightly been banned for years.

 

[Mr F.]

Frankly, I think the guy should be stripped naked, have hateful slurs written on his body, get sprayed in oil, be lit on fire, and then have everyone nearby run off.

It's only fair.

And apparently it is just a prank. To, you know, be abused and assaulted like this.

Then again, from a real perspective, you cannot start with justice to match the crime. Its not how our system is built. Mainly, I was just quoting you because you seem to agree that this was not a prank.

Tripping someone up is a prank. A prank that can go wrong and hurt someone.
Like putting a bucket of water over a door. Another prank that could go wrong and hurt someone.

Covering someone in obscenities and oil before setting their groin on fire is not a fucking prank. It is an assault, an assault the abusers found amusing, which led to death. Not a prank gone wrong. An assault gone wrong.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

"Here is some depressing news, please tell me if you agree with me"

That's pretty fucked up. Let's hope this idiot gets locked away for a good 20 years at least.

Prison sentences are just ridiculous sometimes. Remember the tramp that stole a little food, felt guilty, brought it back and got charged with like 3 times the sentence? Yeah, fucked up.

 

[KeyMaster45]

In fact, here's what a prank is. A prank is covering someone in tar and chicken feathers. Not fire and oil. Seriously.

Yeah, tar and feathering someone is very far outside the realm of pranking.

From teh all knowing Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarring_and_feathering

In a typical tar-and-feathers attack, the mob's victim was stripped to his waist. Hot tar was either poured or painted onto the person while he was immobilized. Then the victim either had feathers thrown on him or was rolled around on a pile of feathers so they stuck to the tar. Often the victim was then paraded around town on a cart or wooden rail. The aim was to inflict enough pain and humiliation on a person to make him either conform his behavior to the mob's demands or be driven from town. The practice was never an official punishment in the United States, but rather a form of vigilante attack.

Considering that the tar used is nowadays assumed to be asphalt tar, and not the pine tar that would be used in the past, this could be just as deadly a "prank" when involving stupid teenagers. So no, tar and feathering someone is not a prank; it's just as vicious an assault. That it gets used for laughs in children's cartoons doesn't make it any less horrible in real life.

 

[lacktheknack]

Frankly, I think the guy should be stripped naked, have hateful slurs written on his body, get sprayed in oil, be lit on fire, and then have everyone nearby run off.

It's only fair.

And apparently it is just a prank. To, you know, be abused and assaulted like this.

Then again, from a real perspective, you cannot start with justice to match the crime. Its not how our system is built. Mainly, I was just quoting you because you seem to agree that this was not a prank.

Tripping someone up is a prank. A prank that can go wrong and hurt someone.
Like putting a bucket of water over a door. Another prank that could go wrong and hurt someone.

Covering someone in obscenities and oil before setting their groin on fire is not a fucking prank. It is an assault, an assault the abusers found amusing, which led to death. Not a prank gone wrong. An assault gone wrong.

Yes.

The point I was trying to make was "Only do a prank that you wouldn't mind having happen to yourself".

THIS is a prank:

<youtube=xP7Pn20qGtA>

Setting some dude on fire is NOT a prank.

The fact that I have to make this distinction vexes me to no end.

 

[DrunkenMonkey]

If he set another guy on fire adn got 3,5 years and the minimum for manslaughter is five years...what?

I really can't tell if 3.5 years is long enough, since I've never been to a prison in my whole life, or even met a criminal (or atleast, someone who said they were a criminal).

Prison is about rehabilitation, and if he can rehabilitate in 3.5 years, then it's long enough.

Just to clarify, the U.S. prison system's primary goal is not rehabilitation, it's primary goal is to keep people incarcerated and out of the public. It should be rehabilitation but it's not, because, 3.5 years is just enough time for the kid to ruin his life and fall into the crimonogenic effect, where the odds are that he will be back to prison will be high enough.

This is the problem i have with our legal system. If he had a life sentance (Which he deserves, for taking somebody elses) He's not going to back to prison because he's staying in there. Sure, like you said if he's released chances are he is going to end up back in there, but how? Through being convicted for petty theft, or another hate related crime?


For the record, i'm all for the americans version of 'life'. Isn't it only 25-30 years over here? I remember seeing something about a guy that killed 3 people in the states and racked up 500 years.

Just for the record, nobody stays for life in prison, the odds are that he passes the parole hearing, or getting out through good behavior is high enough. The reason why he's going to be back in prison is because life after prison is going to be hell through the straight and narrow. He lost job opportunities, lost the right to vote, is going to be scorned by the public for being an ex-convict,etc, etc. So yes, eventually the kid might resort to crime which will get him sent back.

It doesn't matter if it's something as small as petty theft. What matters is that he will keep returning to prison which is the equivalent of the highly sought after "life" sentence that people want. It should always be kept in mind that the more time you spend in prison, the higher your chances of going back will be for another committed offense.

 

[Vareoth]

I think I will pay him a little visit when he gets out in 3.5 years.

Edit: Oh goody, it seems he gets out in half that time. I can't wait.

 

[PissOffRoth]

Uhhh, no?

If prison was about punishment and removing a dangerous person from dociety, they'd look A LOT different than when they do now.

Rehabilitation clinics are for rehabilitation. This is not where most criminals go. They go to prison because they damage society by not being in prison. We don't lock them all up for life because that's really expensive. The idea is that they will hate prison enough to not commit any crimes when they're released.

What exactly do you think a prison looks like?

 

[Xan Krieger]

I don't think these kids deserve rehabilitation, I think they should be placed in an incinerator so they can feel the pain the 18 year old felt before they die. It's only fair.

 

[Product Placement]

What if Steven had been your son or your brother? Would you still feel like 3.5 years are enough.

The court that sentenced the guy thought it was enough. That would be sufficient for me.

So, because the "court" decided it, it must be perfectly fitting and worthwhile allotment of prison time?
Mate, in some places you can be let off from killing someone with albinism, because they don't consider albinos human, and in the states people have been known to get longer sentences for smoking a joint and getting caught, how the fuck, is 3.5 years an acceptable sentence, when you consider that this dude, wrote phrases of a clearly negatively labeling sort on a guy whom he coerced into stripping naked, and then BURNED HIM TO DEATH.

Just a quick question for you, have you ever experienced a severe burn? if you have ever burned yourself, like at all, now imagine it being over a large portion of your body, including your genitals, and not stopping until you die.
I think that most people would agree that that's just about the most painful way to die(not including certain neurotoxins of course), and when you consider that it was obviously an action taken for reasons of discrimination, well torturing someone to death because they're different, takes a certain degree of FUCKED THE HELL UP.
Now, that might be a learned kind of fucked the hell up taught by bad parents, and if so, the fact that he fled the scene clearly means he knows just how bad his actions were, in this case a nice long prison sentence would act as both a good reminder to him of how wrong it is to burn someone to death for not being "normal" enough in his eyes, and serve as a warning to anyone else in his community who may share his sentiments towards people with a different lifestyle, different sexual orientation, and or disabilities(taking his apparent autism into account here as well).

What I'm trying to say is, the court isn't always right, because sometimes the court is biased in such a way as to willfully ignore certain elements due to personal prejudices. After all, the law is about as concrete in most cases as silly putty.

Pretty much agree with you but wanted to comment on the bolded part. The fact that he ran away wasn't because he set the boy on fire. He ran away because a neighbor heard the screams and came running to investigate. The main motives for running away was because he didn't want to get caught in the act. It mirrors a classic bully mentality where someone doesn't care what he's doing, as long as he believes that there won't be any comeuppance. Afterwards, he maintains that the boy set himself on fire because, hey, he's a gay retards so people are bound to believe that, right?

I personally believe that the only reason why he ended up pleading guilty before trial was because his lawyer managed to convince him that it was the best way to move forward. Had he persisted and maintained his innocence, he would have gotten a much tougher sentence.

 

[fwiffo]

Give him 5 years. Its a fucked up crime. He'll still be in his 20s when he gets out, which is way more than the person he killed. I know 3 years is still tough time, but yeah, really fucked up crime.

 

[LetalisK]

I think I'd like to see this from a less sketchy source. While either way this is a terrible thing, it's clear the media is wanting to tell a story and at this point they have no evidence to prove their narrative has any truth to is.

Whaaaaat? When would the media ever be emotionally manipulative? *checks calendar* Oh, right, it's a day that ends in "y".

I also think people are underestimating just how stupid dudeguybros can be. I would not be surprised in the least if it was a stupid prank gone horribly wrong rather than a hate crime.

 

[Vareoth]

I think I'd like to see this from a less sketchy source. While either way this is a terrible thing, it's clear the media is wanting to tell a story and at this point they have no evidence to prove their narrative has any truth to is.

Whaaaaat? When would the media ever be emotionally manipulative? *checks calendar* Oh, right, it's a day that ends in "y".

I also think people are underestimating just how stupid dudeguybros can be. I would not be surprised in the least if it was a stupid prank gone horribly wrong rather than a hate crime.

I must remember that little trick. I can do anything as long as I say that it was a prank.

Sometimes I am quite glad that I do not understand humans.

Though the cynical part of me knows why this crime was only lightly punished.

 

[Dr. Thrax]

Rehabilitation clinics are for rehabilitation. This is not where most criminals go. They go to prison because they damage society by not being in prison. We don't lock them all up for life because that's really expensive. The idea is that they will hate prison enough to not commit any crimes when they're released.

What exactly do you think a prison looks like?

Except that this is the British Prison System we're talking about.
They attempt to rehabilitate criminals back into productive members of society, whereas here in the US, we lock them up and forget about them and wonder just why they're back again a month after release.
I agree, prison should be a punishment, however it needs to include rehabilitation to help prevent repeat offenses.
Locking a man up in a cell for a few years isn't going to teach him anything, he's still going to be an unproductive shitheel who has a good chance of committing a repeat offense and landing his ass back in jail. Simply "hating prison" isn't enough of a motivation to keep criminals from committing repeat offenses. Ask anyone that has been in the US prison system, they'll tell you they hate it. Ask the ones that have gone back due to repeat offenses, a few will answer "I don't know" others will make up other excuses.
Rehabilitation can give them new hobbies, interests and non-criminal goals they wish to achieve during their sentence, and upon release they would potentially wish to seek that out, rather than return to crime.
Besides, people have gotten years of time in prison for minor offenses, something that isn't even worth the costs to hold someone in prison for a week. Are you saying that those people are "damaging society" by not being in prison?

 

[Firia]

Prison is about rehabilitation, and if he can rehabilitate in 3.5 years, then it's long enough.

I'm just going to step in and say a factoid or two.

Prison in the West is most certainly not about rehabilitation. It is about containment. The majority of prison systems are private, and serve as cement storage lockers for people that are considered a danger or a nuisance to society (we put homeless and the mentally ill in prison too). Because we have standards for human treatment, prisons are at least required to do things like feed the people.

There's a whole slew of things I'm glossing over. Like different levels of containment; places where people are allowed to receive mail, write/read books, all the way down to extended/permanent solitary with almost always results in mental illness. And there are a few prisons that do focus on rehab. But when you look at the big picture, the Prison system in the west is just about containment; remove rouge elements from society, and store them away while the clock ticks down. It's more about punishment and containment than rehab.

[Edit] seems it's the british prison system, of which I have no knowledge of.